Custer v. Mayfield, 20160
| Decision Date | 17 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 20160,20160,2 |
| Citation | 207 N.E.2d 221,138 Ind.App. 575 |
| Parties | Jerry W. CUSTER, Appellant, v. Robert C. MAYFIELD, Appellee |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Grimm & Grimm, Howard S. Grimm, Edgar A. Grimm, Auburn, for appellant.
William F. McNagny, J. A. Bruggeman, Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, Ft. Wayne, for appellee.
[138 INDAPP 579] MOTE, Judge.
The appellant having filed a petition designated as a 'Petition for Rehearing', the appellee filed his 'Brief in Opposition to Petition for Rehearing.' Having considered said petition filed by appellant, it is the opinion of this Court that compliance with Rule 2-22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court is lacking.
This rule states:
Appellant has filed no separate brief in support of his petition and has obviously attempted to combine his brief with his statement of reasons for rehearing. In said petition appellant not only argues that our decision is erroneous and attempts to present reasons why, but also reiterates his contentions on the merits of the case already considered in the briefs filed by the parties heretofore, as well as including citations of various authorities to support such contentions.
It has been held by our courts that a petition for rehearing must conform to the aforesaid Rule 2-22 and that it must not be an argumentative brief. See Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1956), 127 Ind.App. 119, 130 N.E.2d 62, 131 N.E.2d 357; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Weiss (1958), 129 Ind.App. 481, 156 N.E.2d 644, 157 N.E.2d 840.
In the case of Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N.E.2d 823, the Supreme Court stated:
'* * * if such reasons (referring to reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous) cannot be concisely stated, and it is considered that extensive argument in support of alleged errors in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens Nat. Bank of Grant County v. First Nat. Bank in Marion
...prior law, as now, rested within the sound discretion of the trial court. Custer v. Mayfield (1965), 138 Ind.App. 575, 205 N.E.2d 836, 207 N.E.2d 221; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2685 MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE IMPROPERLY SUSTAINED (A) COMPLAINT IS NOT VULNERABLE ON GROUNDS......
-
Ross v. Apple
...v. City of Evansville (1965), Ind.App., 206 N.E.2d 886; Lakes v. Moore (1965), Ind.App., 207 N.E.2d 846; and Custer v. Mayfield (1965), Ind.App., 207 N.E.2d 221. For a very recent restatement of this rule, see: Barkey v. Schermerhorn (1968), Ind.App., 241 N.E.2d 82. In an earlier case, our ......
-
Adoption of Dove, In re
...of Rule 2-22 the word "may" was "shall" and the last sentence on the new Rule was not a part of the old Rule 2-22. In Custer v. Mayfield (1965) 138 Ind.App. 575 at 579, this court held at page 580, 207 N.E.2d 221, at page 222, "It has been held by our courts that a petition for rehearing mu......